The Moderate Voice » MARK DANIELShttp://themoderatevoice.com
An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and rightFri, 09 Dec 2016 15:03:53 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2http://themoderatevoice.com
http://themoderatevoice.com/media/favicon.icoThe Moderate VoiceTo find a good president, start by finding a good listenerhttp://themoderatevoice.com/to-find-a-good-president-start-by-finding-a-good-listener/
http://themoderatevoice.com/to-find-a-good-president-start-by-finding-a-good-listener/#commentsSun, 31 Jul 2016 21:33:33 +0000http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=218424

Cartoonist Scott Adams of Dilbert fame, raised a ruckus three days ago when he posted this on Twitter: If experience is necessary for being president, name a political topic I can’t master in one hour under the tutelage of top experts. — Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) July 28, 2016 On first blush, someone reading that might [...]

On first blush, someone reading that might think that Adams supports Donald Trump for president. Trump has no experience in either elected or appointed political office.

In fact though, Adams supports Hillary Clinton for president. He was simply making a point. He believes that political experience is unnecessary to be president.

As a pastor, I don’t give my personal political preferences. But I am a student of history, particularly of presidential history. I also study leadership. I’ve spent more than thirty years as a pastor, a servant leader in and from the Church. I’ve also spent countless hours over the years picking the brains of leaders, trying to learn all I could on the subject.

And here’s what I think about Adams’ thesis: He’s right. “Experience,” at least as we commonly think of it–as political experience, is irrelevant in a president.

As a pastor, I don’t take sides politically. But I do sometimes talk about the politics of politics or the history of politics. Here’s a little political fortune-telling, then. Despite polling indicating that vast majorities of the voting public have unfavorable views of both of the major party candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, I [...]

As a pastor, I don’t take sides politically. But I do sometimes talk about the politics of politics or the history of politics. Here’s a little political fortune-telling, then.

Despite polling indicating that vast majorities of the voting public have unfavorable views of both of the major party candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, I don’t think that nominees of the two main “minor parties” will gain much traction. I doubt that that cumulatively, they’ll receive more than 2 to 4% of the total vote.

The reason that the Libertarian and Green Parties’ candidates won’t get much above that is because of, and not in spite of, the unprecedented levels of wariness and distrust voters have for Trump and Clinton.

But most interesting of all, the poll shows that 15% of voters expressed no preference.

It stands to reason that this bloc of voters includes people who don’t, under any circumstances, want to see either Trump or Clinton win the presidency. Some are likely “never Clinton,” while others are “never Trump.” It’s difficult to imagine that people with strong feelings like these will “waste” their votes by supporting candidates who have no chance of winning. (Mind you, I’m not saying that they would be wasting their votes, only that they will likely think that voting for the Libertarians or the Greens would be a wasteful act.)

Instead, I think, these voters will either vote for Clinton, not because they love Clinton, but because they don’t like Trump, or they will vote for Trump because they don’t like Clinton.

It seems that in every election cycle, people speak of choosing “the less of two evils.” This is often said unfairly, because we tend to decide for whom we vote on emotional and visceral grounds that take little account of things like issues, character, and biography.

But it does seem that this year, people really don’t like either major party candidate. Because of that, I’m betting (not literally of course) that the winner will be elected not out of support or affection, but out of a desire to keep the other candidate out of the White House.

The winning slogan of this campaign will be, “Vote for A, he/she isn’t B.”

My son posted the graphic featuring the Ivins quote on his Facebook page. Because I’m reading Jon Meacham’s biography of George H.W. Bush, the graphic inspired me to write in his comments about what happens when good people behave badly. (I’m only up to Bush’s move into the oil business in my reading of Meacham’s [...]

My son posted the graphic featuring the Ivins quote on his Facebook page.

Because I’m reading Jon Meacham’s biography of George H.W. Bush, the graphic inspired me to write in his comments about what happens when good people behave badly. (I’m only up to Bush’s move into the oil business in my reading of Meacham’s book, by the way.)

One of the things that has always struck me about President Bush (#41) is that, while holding public office, he always conducted himself with honor and integrity, seeking to do what was best for the country.

His decision to free the country of the massive debt rung up by his reckless predecessor, Ronald Reagan, despite the political costs to himself, is one example.

His pulling together of an international coalition to reverse the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was a masterstroke of diplomacy. And the calibrated, appropriate application of power in that war, falling well short of nation-building and imposition on others, while standing up for the right and hemming a dictator in, displayed not only ability but wisdom. (Remember that even then, he had people telling him to go in and topple Hussein. He understood that doing so would have been destabilizing, as subsequent events have shown.)

His advocacy for and signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act resulted in the greatest and most significant piece of civil rights legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

But Bush hated campaigning and took a low view of what was appropriate.

As a result, he was a nasty campaigner, though it was incongruous with his principles and character.

After winning the 1988 campaign with the nasty tactics of Lee Atwater, he called, with all sincerity for a “kinder and gentler” politics in his 1989 Inaugural Address.

Ivins was right though,

you can’t keep appealing to the baseness of voters and expect to be able to consistently govern with integrity and a fair regard for the opinions of others

.

Once a party–any party–starts to treat those with whom it disagrees as enemies rather than simply as people with whom there is disagreement, the ugliness of people, the expectation that politics should be a zero-sum game of winners and losers, and the nastiness of the political process are uncorked.

Years ago, I remember reading an interview with the actor (and activist) Robert Redford. He reported being appalled after going to a dinner in Washington, at seeing a liberal Democrat and a conservative Republican who had gone after each other in debate on the Senate floor earlier in the day, laughing and talking amicably while at the event. He expected incivility.

Redford’s expectation of our politicians is the same as those of many people in both parties, these days. It’s infantile and destructive.

The frustrating thing about Bush 41, our best president, I think, since Dwight Eisenhower, is that he knew the costs of unleashing the “enemies list” genie. He had watched Richard Nixon bring our political system to its knees with that insanity.

And Bush the Elder is, by nature, I think, a man who searches for ways to move the public interests forward while working with people from all points of view.

He just wasn’t secure enough in his appeal, I believe, to be Bush when he ran for office. Thankfully, he was Bush while in office.

But now, it seems, that we have two major party contenders who, whatever their impulses may be, have so sucked up to the nasties of their own parties that they may be unable to govern once elected. It’s not as though we need more gridlock. But that, or worse, seems likely to happen whoever of these two horrible candidates–Clinton or Trump–is elected.

Thane Maynard, the director of the Cincinnati Zoo, has been subjected to a grilling during a press conference dealing with the events at the zoo yesterday. One cable network trailed a headline beneath Maynard, as they carried the event live: “Zoo Director Takes Questions on Decision to Take Life of Gorilla.” It feels like some [...]

Thane Maynard, the director of the Cincinnati Zoo, has been subjected to a grilling during a press conference dealing with the events at the zoo yesterday.

One cable network trailed a headline beneath Maynard, as they carried the event live: “Zoo Director Takes Questions on Decision to Take Life of Gorilla.”

It feels like some in the media are in persecution mode with this story.

Maynard, who has hosted a radio spot called ‘The 90 Second Naturalist’ on public radio for years, has an obvious love for the animal world and has served as director of the Cincinnati Zoo, one of the best such institutions in the world, for a long time. The zoo has an impeccable record for keeping safe all those who come to see and learn about the animal world, as well as for giving proper care and respect to its animals.

But Maynard was peppered with endless questions that seemed to impugn the integrity and the record of both the zoo and himself. He endured it patiently, which, of course, he needed to do. Otherwise, he would be susceptible to charges of cover-up and obfuscation. It still seems like over-the-top treatment of a man and a zoo with well-earned reputations.

Some questions are needed, of course.

But the whole approach of the media to this story, as evidenced by the treatment given to Maynard, seems wrong to me. The necessity of taking the gorilla’s life is obvious. The fact that this is an accident for which the zoo bears no blame is clear too. Maynard and the handlers at the zoo should be applauded for the decision they made to end the gorilla’s life, not treated as suspects in a murder investigation.

Shouldn’t that headline have been something more like: “Zoo Director Takes Questions on Decision to Save Child’s Life”?

I think so.

[By the way, the web site of Cincinnati’s channel 12, placed the story of Maynard’s press conference under the headline: “WATCH: Full press conference on child falling into zoo’s gorilla enclosure.” That seems more like it.]

This is the prayer offered as the Invocation at the Memorial Day Services held at Stubbs Park in Centerville, Ohio, earlier today. Father in heaven, on this day of remembrance, we offer thanks for those who have given their lives in military service to our country. You know how easily we forget the good done [...]

This is the prayer offered as the Invocation at the Memorial Day Services held at Stubbs Park in Centerville, Ohio, earlier today.

Father in heaven, on this day of remembrance, we offer thanks for those who have given their lives in military service to our country. You know how easily we forget the good done to us in our lives and how readily we trivialize days like Memorial Day. We get caught up with things like ball games, picnics, and holiday sales, and soon the true reason this day has been set aside is forgotten. Help us, God, to never forget, to always remember, that the promise of America has been secured by the sacrifices of people like those we memorialize today. Grant that, in remembrance of fallen heroes, we will live lives that bring You, that bring them, and that bring our country, honor. In Jesus’ name. Amen

]]>http://themoderatevoice.com/memorial-day-prayer/feed/1Is the United States “a hellhole”?http://themoderatevoice.com/is-the-united-states-a-hellhole/
http://themoderatevoice.com/is-the-united-states-a-hellhole/#commentsMon, 30 May 2016 02:33:10 +0000http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=216576

“A hellhole” is how Donald Trump describes the United States. I have lots of criticisms of my country, but according to Trump, the country is sliding into Third World status and is militarily and economically impotent. Is that true? No, says Washington Post columnist and CNN host Fareed Zakaria. Even though we live in a [...]

In fact, it is increasingly clear that the United States has in recent years reinforced its position as the world’s leading economic, technological, military and political power. The country dominates virtually all leading industries — from social networks to mobile telephony to nano- and biotechnology — like never before. It has transformed itself into an energy superpower — the world’s biggest producer of oil and gas — while also moving to the cutting edge of the green-technology revolution. And it is demographically vibrant, while all its major economic peers (Japan, Europe and even China) face certain demographic decline…

…there are nine global tech platforms (Google Chrome, Microsoft Office, Facebook, etc.) that are used by more than 1 billion people. All dominate their respective markets — and all are American. The dollar is more widely used for international financial transactions today than it was 20 years ago…

…China is the closest the United States has to a rising rival but only on one measure, gross domestic product…

China is far behind the United States in its ability to add value to goods and create new products…

In 2013, China took in less than $1 billion, while the United States received $128 billion. In 2012, America registered seven times as many “triadic” patents — those granted in the United States, Europe and Japan.

In the military and political realm, the dominance is even more lopsided. There are many ways to measure this, but take just one: the most potent form of force projection, aircraft carriers. The United States operates 10. China has one, a secondhand Ukrainian ship that it had to retrofit. In the realm of high-tech warfare — drones, stealth — Washington’s lead is even greater. And perhaps most important, the United States has a web of allies around the world and is actually developing new important ones, such as India and Vietnam. Meanwhile, China has one military ally, North Korea.

Military and economic power aren’t end games for the human race, of course. You can, as Jesus tells us, gain the world and lose your soul.

And we do have major problems in this country that need to be resolved.

BET claims to give ten good reasons that it’s not a good idea. (HT to Ann Althouse for putting me onto the BET slide show where they make their case.) The two biggest reasons they give for not doing a Prince biopic is that biopics are generally not good and that Prince wasn’t involved in [...]

The two biggest reasons they give for not doing a Prince biopic is that biopics are generally not good and that Prince wasn’t involved in the anti-hunger supergrouping of the 90’s top US musical superstars, We Are the World. Althouse objected to the latter point as a good excuse for not portraying Prince’s non-participation in that project, suggesting that exploring Prince’s motives for saying no could be interesting.

Tonight, I watched the last half-hour of Jersey Boys. Horrible! (Of course, it might have helped if the Four Seasons’ music, which I hated while growing up during the sixties, was good.)

But, in any case, the film industry has a way of butchering and pasteurizing their subjects, melding them into [indistinguishable] “musicaleverybodies.” Didn’t the Johnny Cash and Ray Charles biopics look like they were about the same person, that they led the exact same lives? Biopics have a way of disintegrating into kind of reality TV versions of ‘Behind the Music,’ every story the same.

When Hollywood went to work on telling George Gershwin’s story (1945), almost none of it bore any resemblance to George Gershwin’s story.

The same is true of ‘Yankee Doodle Dandy’ (1942), the biopic about George M. Cohan, which at least has the redeeming quality of being entertaining, spiced as it is by James Cagney’s extraordinary, all-in dance stylings.

But there have been two more recent movie biopics that seem to have fairly hewn to the actual stories of their subjects’ lives and careers.

The most creative of these is Kevin Spacey’s ‘Beyond the Sea’ (2004). It’s Spacey’s telling of Bobby Darin’s life story. There’s little fiddling with the facts, though there are interesting flashbacks and flash forwards. You get a clear understanding of Darrin the man. Spacey, a terrific mimic, does a good job channeling his inner Darrin on the latter’s catalog. A thoroughly enjoyable film.

Another successful recent music biopic is the 2014 release, ‘Ragamuffin,’ focused on the life of Rich Mullins, an early practitioner of Christian contemporary music. Mullins’ music was honest and so is this film. It shows the musician’s quest to live a life of authentic Christian faith despite his rising fame. The music is great too. A film both enjoyable and deeply moving.

BET, I think, is wrong for suggesting that Prince’s staying away from mass social activity renders him unfit for film treatment. His reasoning [as Althouse suggests] may warrant exploration. What were his reasons for doing big charitable events, while keeping his significant personal philanthropy quiet?

In fact, a similar shying away from association with big causes–in spite of appearances and reputation to the contrary and a few exceptions–will face any prospective producer of a Bob Dylan biopic. Dylan’s ‘Blowin’ in the Wind’ was an anthem for many in the 60’s civil rights movement. But his connection to the movement or to the protests of the war in Vietnam were limited to non-existent. Dylan wasn’t really a cause guy; he was more of a Dylan guy.

Terrorists are in the business of engaging in a kind of asymmetric warfare. Their power dwarfed by nations with standing armies and sophisticated military establishments, they give vent to their grievances through shocking attacks that require, not armies, but individuals or small cadres. Terrorist groups make a small investment of people and money that results [...]

Terrorists are in the business of engaging in a kind of asymmetric warfare. Their power dwarfed by nations with standing armies and sophisticated military establishments, they give vent to their grievances through shocking attacks that require, not armies, but individuals or small cadres. Terrorist groups make a small investment of people and money that results in death and mayhem, if only for a short time.

As their name implies, terrorists count on terror, panic, and fear to pursue their ends. Their hope that is a number of such attacks, costing them little while inciting increasing levels of fear, will eventually bring them the victories they want.

This is what radical Islamic terrorism does. The aim of such groups is to terrorize the democratic, pluralistic West into submission to their caliphates.

But we can only be terrified if we allow ourselves to be. That’s why I thought that President Obama’s decision not to hop onto a plane and go to France in the wake of the Paris attacks sent the right signal to the country and to the terrorists: We regret the loss of life. We remain firm in fighting the terrorists. We stand with our allies. But we’re not going to let thugs interrupt the functioning of America or its government.

Big media–major media outlets on the Internet, on television and radio, and in print–have an obligation to present news events with fairness and objectivity, of course. And they also have no obligation to present the point of view of a particular country when it comes to the acts of Islamic terrorists.

But big journalistic outlets also should not allow themselves to be unwitting co-conspirators with those who sow the seeds of terror.

The practitioners of asymmetric warfare depend on those who gather and disseminate the news to increase the impact of their misdeeds, magnifying their significance, fostering terror and panic and so, playing into the terrorists’ hands.

Right now, the cable news outlets, particularly CNN, are almost wall to wall “covering” the story of the Egyptian airliner that apparently went down in the Mediterranean. As of this moment, all we know for sure is that security officials, in the US and other places, suspect that this is a terrorist act. It probably is.

Beyond that, we know next to nothing. And THAT is the story.

Should there be stories about possible security breaches at Charles de Gaulle Airport? Should there be stories about the search for debris and the investigation? Should we learn about the victims of terror after terrorist acts? Of course.

But the obsessive coverage of terrorist events by big media breaks faith with news consumers in that, in magnifying the impact of terrorism, in helping terrorist groups with their recruiting by helping unstable people see how one person or a small group of persons can terrify an entire culture. Their obsessive “reporting” of the lost airliner gives the terrorists exactly what they want, a world quaking in fear and uncertainty, a world that thinks the terrorists are stronger then they really are.

It seems to me that in journalism, as well as in statecraft and military affairs, proportionality should be the watchword. The terrorists can cause the world problems. And every murder done by terrorists is a tragedy. And people need to be informed. But the exploitation of such events to ramp up viewership (and advertising revenue) is an unconscionable surrender to the perpetrators of terror. It helps the terrorists’ cause.

In news coverage, the terrorists ought to be whittled down to size: Journalism should report the news, then get rid of the hours of panic-inducing speculations. The only ones to benefit from disproportional–or we could say, “asymmetric”–reporting are ISIS and Al Qaeda.

Senator Ted Cruz’s announcement that he has chosen Carly Fiorina as his vice presidential running mate is both desperate and cynical. It’s a move clearly designed to create a speed bump in the California GOP primary. The “bump for Trump” is Cruz’s Hail Mary pass, thrown in hopes that Fiorina can draw enough Republicans in [...]

Senator Ted Cruz’s announcement that he has chosen Carly Fiorina as his vice presidential running mate is both desperate and cynical.

It’s a move clearly designed to create a speed bump in the California GOP primary. The “bump for Trump” is Cruz’s Hail Mary pass, thrown in hopes that Fiorina can draw enough Republicans in Cali to bring an upset.

Because Fiorina, who lost when she ran for the US Senate from California, has no chance of making the Golden State turn red in November, one can be sure that this move has nothing to do with the general election.

And unlike when Ronald Reagan announced his selection of Pennsylvania’s liberal Republican senator Richard Schweiker to be his running mate prior to the 1976 convention, Cruz has no realistic chance of stopping Trump as Reagan did have of stopping Ford back then. Furthermore, as journalist James Oliphant points out, Reagan’s move was designed to expand his base of support, surrounding incumbent President Gerald Ford from the right that Reagan occupied and from the left from which Schweiker came. Cruz’s choice of Fiorina doesn’t budge Cruz’s negligible appeal.

]]>http://themoderatevoice.com/215710/feed/7If we can’t elect a Garfield, maybe we each can be a Garfieldhttp://themoderatevoice.com/if-we-cant-elect-a-garfield-maybe-we-can-be-a-garfield/
http://themoderatevoice.com/if-we-cant-elect-a-garfield-maybe-we-can-be-a-garfield/#commentsMon, 25 Apr 2016 05:01:38 +0000http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=215652

On Saturday, returning from a daylong meeting with church members, someone mentioned the name of an Ohio town. “Isn’t that where Garfield was from?” I asked, realizing in an instant that people would think I was referring to James A. Garfield, America’s twentieth president, and not to the orange cat in comic strips. Garfield doesn’t [...]

On Saturday, returning from a daylong meeting with church members, someone mentioned the name of an Ohio town. “Isn’t that where Garfield was from?” I asked, realizing in an instant that people would think I was referring to James A. Garfield, America’s twentieth president, and not to the orange cat in comic strips.

Garfield doesn’t come up often in conversation and the only biography I’ve read of him wasn’t very good.

In this, Marshall asserts, Garfield has a lot to teach modern Christians (and, I’d say, others):

Garfield’s modesty would make him seem wildly out of place in today’s political arena, but it fits his role as a lay-minister well. Of the church leaders I’ve known, those who have contributed the most to those in their care have achieved their influence as a result of character that’s unseen and humility that’s steady. It’s never been done through declarative muscle; instead, like Garfield, they faithfully followed the humble path and have inspired others to do the same. They’re the pastors who hang around after everyone’s gone, get out the mop, and clean up red Kool-Aid stains in the church kitchen without thought of recompense or recognition. They’re the tired-but-tireless Sunday school teachers who are in their fifth decade of helping children understand what Jesus meant when he said, “Take up your cross and follow me.” They’re everywhere—but rarely rewarded. And that’s probably how they want things to be…

Garfield’s relative anonymity in history shouldn’t surprise us—an
assassin’s bullet tragically ended his life less than seven months into
his term. His legacy, however, is important because his story relates an
enduring lesson: true, dignified influence is often achieved not
through force or compulsion, but through quiet humility.

In the midst of this year’s wretchedly depressing presidential campaign, as we watch more than a few candidates pander, grovel, assault, and misconstrue the records or beliefs of others, it would be refreshing to be surprised by the nomination of a Garfield, a candidate not seeking the office, but seeking to do the first thing all leaders must do, serve. It’s something to pray for.

But barring that miracle, maybe we who follow Christ could pray that, like Garfield, we could learn what it means to humbly follow the crucified and risen Jesus. We probably won’t ever be elected president. But filled with the power of our Lord, God may use us to change the lives of the people we encounter each day for the better. And doing that would be a great ambition for each of us to hold.

]]>http://themoderatevoice.com/if-we-cant-elect-a-garfield-maybe-we-can-be-a-garfield/feed/9“Among the founders, Hamilton was probably the most passionate advocate of national unity…http://themoderatevoice.com/among-the-founders-hamilton-was-probably-the-most-passionate-advocate-of-national-unity/
http://themoderatevoice.com/among-the-founders-hamilton-was-probably-the-most-passionate-advocate-of-national-unity/#commentsMon, 25 Apr 2016 03:52:52 +0000http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=215648

…He wanted people to think of themselves as Americans, not as citizens of separate states.” Alexander Hamilton was among the foremost purveyors of New York Values, says Cass Sunstein. I think he’s right. And one part of those values is the very American idea that we need not be trapped by our heritage, that we [...]

Alexander Hamilton was among the foremost purveyors of New York Values, says Cass Sunstein. I think he’s right.

And one part of those values is the very American idea that we need not be trapped by our heritage, that we can be more than an indifferent world or so-called fate would have us be. (An idea that we need to extend to more people if we are to fulfill the promise of America.)

This is precisely the story of Hamilton, the illegitimate son of a man who eventually abandoned him, born in the Caribbean, a immigrant to America, where he graduated from King’s College (now Columbia University), became a leader in the Revolutionary War, wrote the lion’s share of The Federalist Papers, and, while serving as George Washington’s secretary of the treasury, created the American economy.

That economic system has led not only to the nation with the most sustained prosperity in world history, it also was one major factor in fostering American national unity.

That represents another of Hamilton’s New York Values. He saw himself more as an American than as a New Yorker. Like Washington, he understood the importance for the nation that fought a revolution for liberty to complete that revolution by a commitment to mutual dependence and accountability, resulting in the US Constitution.

Hamilton’s commitment to nationhood and his conception of what it means to be a federalist puts the lie to those who squawk about states’ rights as a means of avoiding full participation in American national life (liberty and mutual accountability) and undermining America. As Sunstein writes:

Most politicians who run for national office develop a deep affection for the nation’s diverse states, with all their unique quirks and histories. It’s much worse than bad politics for a candidate to complain about “Vermont values,” “Nebraska values,” “Georgia values,” “Ohio values,” or the values of any of the states. In light of the nation’s hard-won unity, it’s a betrayal of the great motto of the United States, which can also be found on our currency: E pluribus unum (from many, one).

Yep.

Hamilton was in a very real sense not only the quintessential New Yorker, but because of his commitment to New York Values, was, along with the Virginian Washington, one original member of a new species that has been around now for more than two centuries. Hamilton was an American.

I’m sixty-two. I probably listened to more of Prince than many people my age. How that happened was sort of happenstance. Prince’s heyday was in the early- and mid-eighties. It was the era of big hair and MTV. I was listening a lot to U2, the Police, Stevie Wonder, a bit of Bruce Springsteen, with [...]

I’m sixty-two. I probably listened to more of Prince than many people my age. How that happened was sort of happenstance.

Prince’s heyday was in the early- and mid-eighties. It was the era of big hair and MTV. I was listening a lot to U2, the Police, Stevie Wonder, a bit of Bruce Springsteen, with whom I became less enamored after Nebraska, and later, Bruce Cockburn. And, of course, I was still listening to Paul McCartney, Bob Dylan, Queen, and David Bowie.

At that time, I was in seminary. During my senior year, I worked as a janitor, cleaning seminary offices and the library after hours. It was a fun gig and it came with some perks.

One was being able to crank up a stereo in the library basement while dusting and vacuuming. I didn’t have much money then either. So, when friends loaned music to me, I would often use said stereo to transfer their music to cassettes I could stick into my boom box at home.

The fourteen year old son of a classmate got wind of this perk and asked me to record a bunch of Prince LPs that a friend had loaned to him. Being into piracy, I recorded all of that material for him and me.

For a while after that, I listened to a lot Prince. I thought his lyrics ranged from vapid to the faux sophistication of an adolescent thinking he knew more about sex than his parents. But his musicianship was undeniable: He had a fine sense of melody and rhythm. He played guitar especially well. And his voice was incredibly rangy. For about six months, I was sort of hooked.

But, in the end, I was never moved to buy a Prince LP. In fact, I wasn’t moved by Prince at all. His virtuosity could move me to appreciation. But his songs never moved me. They didn’t encourage me to see my life or the world differently. They were simply the candy by which he showcased his amazing talents.

In recent years, I was aware that Prince was performing some. But I had no idea that he was still releasing new material–some source today said that he had released four new LPs in the past eighteen months! To me, there were many artists older than Prince–McCartney or Dylan, for example–or artists who were his contemporaries–U2 comes to mind–more current than Prince has been over the past two decades.

Reading the other day about his plane making an emergency landing because he was ill was like learning of the reappearance of a ghost from the past, similar to seeing his amazing guitar solo on the collaborative performance of While My Guitar Gently Weeps at the 2004 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony.

So, the response to Prince’s death I’ve seen evidenced online and, briefly tonight, on TV, has caught me by surprise.

Prince is being accorded coverage similar to that which greeted the untimely deaths of Michael Jackson, John Lennon, and David Bowie, or, in less heavily mediated days, those of Marvin Gaye, Sam Cooke, and Buddy Holly.

While I would have guessed before today that, in the end, Prince might be viewed as more culturally significant than some of his contemporaries like Madonna or even Queen, I wouldn’t have anticipated the reaction we’ve seen to his passing. In coming years, I suspect that he’ll be remembered more for his stunning musical performances, both recorded and live on stage, than for the quality or meaning of his compositions.

But however you look at it, his sudden death is a tragedy and I pray that all who grieve will be comforted by God.

An interesting article from earlier this year that appeared in The American Interest. If you’re not a subscriber (which I am not), this will be the only piece you can read from the site this month. I think there’s a general failure to understand the need for security arrangements like NATO or the one the [...]

I think there’s a general failure to understand the need for security arrangements like NATO or the one the US has with Japan demonstrated by history.

Russia’s ability to wreak havoc and the need for intergovernmental cooperation in combating things like terrorism are compelling reasons for keeping NATO, for example.

The USA’s decision to keep Japan demilitarized and under the American nuclear umbrella has, for decades, prevented a nuclear arms race between China and Japan, also, proponents would say, something that would be contrary to US interests.

What, some will wonder, about George Washington’s warning, given in his farewell address, against “entangling alliances.”

Washington’s words have often been used by people like the “America Firsters” who, after the rise of Hitler, effectively prevented the US from working with other western democracies to, at first, thwart and then, to defeat, the Nazis. Millions of lives were lost as a result of the drag they inflicted on American policies.

Washington was, in fact, the father not only of his country, but also of US foreign policy realism. His warning against “entangling alliances” was rooted in his historical context and was advanced in service to the guiding light of his approach to foreign affairs: to always do what was in the best interests of the country.

At that time, that meant keeping the fledgling United States from becoming a partisan in the conflict between the western world’s superpowers of the time, England and France. To be associated closely with either one, to be allied with one country or the other, would put the development of the then-delicate United States at risk. Washington wanted to give the US breathing room to develop its political and economic life, to be able to engage in trade with both of the two major powers without picking sides. When you’re the littlest and weakest kid on the block, it’s best not to rile up the two neighborhood bullies.

Had Washington been around at the end of World War 2, when the US emerged as the preeminent power of the world, at that time hurtling into a Cold War with a third world economy that had atomic weapons (the Soviet Union), I’m sure that his counsel would still have been to do what was in the best interests of America. At that time, that would entail recognizing the country’s changed status among nations and understanding the need to provide leadership to alliances that preserved the freedom and stability for the US. NATO was one of the post-war institutions that did that.

Many argue today that NATO has outlived its usefulness. As indicated above, some disagree with that. They also would say that mutual security arrangements are beneficial to US security and allows this country to act as the “senior partner” in security arrangements with other countries.

It seems to me that the Achilles heel of these arrangements, alluded to in the linked piece, is the failure of nations under the US security umbrella to pay their fair share in manpower, arms, and money. As the article also says, this has allowed western European partner nations to develop social insurance policies that the US doesn’t feel it can afford, in part because of other outlays, including those for NATO.

History demonstrates that a United States turned in on itself is less secure than one engaged with the world.

How that might be expressed today is a political issue and I don’t advance political opinions here, just historical observations.

But my observation is that addressing how to renew partnerships like NATO in light of cyber-terrorism, terrorism, and the aggression of nations like Russia and China is probably something that should occupy the time and thinking of the next president and the American people.

Travel expert Rick Steves shared this graphic on his Facebook timeline. To me, it expresses an important message on this day when we grieve the senseless loss of life perpetrated by ISIS. The object of terrorists is to incite terror, panic, and fear in people. Such reactions are understandable. But when we alter our lifestyles [...]

To me, it expresses an important message on this day when we grieve the senseless loss of life perpetrated by ISIS. The object of terrorists is to incite terror, panic, and fear in people. Such reactions are understandable. But when we alter our lifestyles to accommodate the possible actions of thugs and bullies, they win and we lose.

I’m not suggesting that either individuals or governments act stupidly. When the devil tempted Jesus to jump from the pinnacle of the temple in Jerusalem to see if God the Father would catch Him, Jesus refused. He told the devil that it isn’t right to test God. So, people and governments need to take wise precautions in the face of the terrorist reality.

But if you’re planning on traveling by any means, if you have tickets for a major public event, if you have to go shopping, or if there are things you need to do to live your life, I say do them.

If we let the terrorists intimidate us, we risk wimping out in one of two ways:

Acceding to them and not doing anything or

Turning free countries into sterile, lifeless armed encampments

Both are fearful prospects fueled by fear which would change the fundamental qualities of living in a pluralistic democracy that includes both majority rule and a fair regard for the minority.

There are many things that give rise to Islamic-based terrorism. But among them is the palpable fear that potential terrorists see in free societies when terrorist acts do occur, something that offers them the possibility of feeling powerful. The fear of free societies is one of their greatest recruiting tools.

Terrorism must be fought on many fronts and in many ways. One of the ways is for we who value freedom and the sanctity of human life not to let fear get the best of us.

Like any other human being, I fear many things. But my faith in an eternal God Who raised His Son Jesus from the grave and promises a piece of His resurrection victory to all who repent and believe in Him, helps me to put my fear in perspective. As Archbishop Desmond Tutu, for the Christian, death is not the worst thing that can happen.

In the weeks prior to September 11, 2001, my daughter and I were trying to decide whether to book a flight to Germany. September 11 was the deadline we had set for making our decision. We booked the flight that night because, we said, we didn’t want Osama bin-Laden making our travel plans for us.

God has given you life. And if you’re a follower of Jesus Christ, you believe that God has given you life with God that never ends. So, live.

On April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr. was gunned down by an assassin. The streets of America’s cities were restive. Bobby Kennedy was campaigning in Indiana’s Democratic primary and was in Indianapolis on the night of King’s death. Kennedy, who was highly popular among African-Americans, was in an African-American community and broke the news [...]

On April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr. was gunned down by an assassin.

The streets of America’s cities were restive.

Bobby Kennedy was campaigning in Indiana’s Democratic primary and was in Indianapolis on the night of King’s death.

Kennedy, who was highly popular among African-Americans, was in an African-American community and broke the news to a crowd to which he was speaking.

He reminded people that King had been an advocate of peaceful change and that, while understanding their rage, because he had lost his own brother to an assassin’s bullet and had felt rage, they must follow King’s example.

He urged the crowd to remain at peace and to keep working for change politically.

While violence erupted in other American cities that night, Indianapolis remained peaceful.

I’ve always remembered that story because it’s a vivid example of the impact that leaders can have on those they lead.

I think of that story again tonight.

Kennedy risked a lot in asking the aggrieved to refrain from the kind of violence to which King and their people had long been subjected.

But in America, leaders, even as they often reflect and amplify the grievances of those they lead and represent, are bound by love of their country and its Constitution (and if they are, as they profess, Christians, by love of God and neighbor) to peacefully represent those grievances in the political process, not legitimize punching opponents in the face.

Every individual is responsible for their own actions, of course.

But when political leaders observe that their rhetoric seems to give their followers permission to be violent, they need to lead by pointing out that the political process isn’t about violence. It’s about persuasion, debate, and the vote.

Senator Bernie Sanders has tweeted that a person can’t be a progressive and a moderate. He said it as a criticism of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who, Sanders claims, tells some people she’s progressive and others that she’s a moderate. I understand that Sanders is basically saying that Clinton has no strong philosophical [...]

I understand that Sanders is basically saying that Clinton has no strong philosophical core, but, out of blind ambition, says whatever she thinks will appeal to the demographic crowd she’s addressing at any given time.

That’s a political judgment about which people have their opinions. With rare exceptions, I don’t express political preferences here.

But I do object to the notion that a person can’t be a moderate progressive. Or a moderate conservative or a moderate liberal.

…being a moderate is less a matter of ideology than it is of the prism through which one views life, including politics.
When teetotling Christians have criticized we Lutherans over our fondness for beer, we’ve typically said, “All things in moderation,” meaning of course that as long as one doesn’t get soused, harm someone else, or abuse one’s body, there’s nothing wrong with having a beer. I became a Lutheran as an adult after several years as an atheist. Moderation, like beer, is an acquired taste for me. But I find that moderation appeals to me. That’s not because I’m wishy washy as some, usually those who want you to agree with their ideological program, insist.
Instead, I believe that a moderate…
…may be conservative or liberal, but refuses to close his or her mind to what others say.
…has core convictions, but not so many as to prevent her or him from agreeing with a conservative on one issue and a liberal on the next.
…asks three basic questions when considering national political issues: Is it right? Is it constitutional? Will it work?
…is an advocate of civility in the political process.
…has an equal loathing of all special interests getting special attention from those in power. A moderate believes in fairness.

Frankly, I’d like to see a lot more moderation in our politics, whatever the politicians’ party or philosophy. I said back then:
For our politics to work in this deeply Red-and-Blue-divided nation, we need a strong dose of the moderation our Founders enshrined in our Constitution. Around the world today, we’re seeing that it isn’t enough to grant people the vote. Immoderate voters elect immoderate leaders, people who are duly-elected despots, tyrants, and hare-brains.

Moderate voters and moderate candidates, whatever their political philosophy, form better governments.

Reading the Old Testament book of Judges with the people of Living Water Lutheran Church in the past week has underscored an important truth articulated famously by Lord Acton: “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The Old Testament judges started out as people without status. But God called them to exercise military and judicial authority [...]

Reading the Old Testament book of Judges with the people of Living Water Lutheran Church in the past week has underscored an important truth articulated famously by Lord Acton: “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

The Old Testament judges started out as people without status. But God called them to exercise military and judicial authority on behalf of His people. The judges often had success. But they often forgot that their power was from God, became selfish and self-serving.

Government, in a world composed of fallen human beings, is necessary. The Bible teaches that governmental authority is God’s idea, an emergency measure necessitated by the human penchant for selfishness and injustice. Christians are enjoined in the New Testament to pray for those in authority.

But what Judges makes clear is that power is a danger to the souls of those who exercised it and therefore, a danger to those over whom power is exercised.

It seems to me that in addition to terms of office, the dangers of power might be mitigated or minimized by deciding as a society that we won’t elect anyone to the presidency or any other public office who wants those offices.

Those who desire power, irrespective of their party, are probably more prone to the abuse of power and a sense of entitlement than others who are more indifferent to it.

America has been and remains fortunate that we have never had a tyrant in the presidency, partly because of the genius of our constitutional system. But we have seen in the presidency of Richard Nixon how corrupting the desire for power can be.

So far as I know, only two of our presidents came to office without seeking it: George Washington and Franklin Pierce. Washington was a triumph, worthy of historian Garry Wills’ assessment that Washington is the greatest political leader in world history. Pierce was a lowest common denominator choice of pols in a smoke-filled room and was a disaster.

That 50% success rate doesn’t daunt me. I would much rather opt for picking people not animated by a desire for power than for those who disingenuously insist that they only want power as a means of doing good.

Brian Williams’ fall from grace and his six-month suspension–likely to become permanent–as anchor for the NBC Nightly News, saddens me. While I haven’t seen more than brief clips of his evening news broadcast for years, I always respected his reporting. It isn’t his reporting that has gotten him into trouble though. It’s his celebrity that’s [...]

Brian Williams’ fall from grace and his six-month suspension–likely to become permanent–as anchor for the NBC Nightly News, saddens me.

While I haven’t seen more than brief clips of his evening news broadcast for years, I always respected his reporting.

It isn’t his reporting that has gotten him into trouble though. It’s his celebrity that’s done it. Or more accurately, his reaction to it. Williams’ “misremembering” and exaggerations weren’t told on his news broadcasts. They were parts of tales he recounted on late night talk shows and in other such entertainment venues.

There’s good reason for anchors of network news shows to make appearances on talk shows. It’s good for the ratings. It makes the individual who is the face of the evening broadcast accessible and, “real” to the public.

But when you get onto the celebrity circuit, you’re given a platform on which you can make a fool of yourself without anyone suggesting that you stop. (At least for awhile.)

Celebrity can be deadly when it comes to someone at a young age. Elvis and Michael Jackson were addicted to it with horrible results throughout their lives. Celebrity can kill people. Or make them insufferable. Or unemployable. Or presumptuous.

According to The New York Times, Williams approached NBC executives about taking over The Tonight Show from Jay Leno. That probably should have set off alarm bells at 30 Rockefeller Center. But when “the talent” does or says something goofy, you do what you can to protect the cash cow by gently rebuffing them and sending them on their way, as NBC execs apparently did.

That works until the celebrity goes one goofy too far. That’s what has happened to Brian Williams.

It’s sad. Williams has been, from all appearances, a good journalist for years. And while in this hypermediated age in which people get their news constantly from the Internet, the nightly news broadcasts aren’t as important as they were in the age of Cronkite and Huntley & Brinkley, Brian Williams was deemed credible and watchable by more viewers than his competitors. He was seen as the best at what he did. But it wasn’t enough for him, apparently.

Words spoken by the new Roman Catholic leader, Pope Francis 1, in an informal homily delivered to the College of Cardinals today, thrilled me. (Thrilled is not one of my usual verbs. But that’s exactly how I felt.) From The Los Angeles Times account of the Mass at which Francis preached: Stressing the power of [...]

Stressing the power of prayer, Francis told the cardinals, “He who does
not pray to the Lord prays to the devil. When we don’t proclaim Jesus Christ, we proclaim the worldliness of the devil, the worldliness of the demon.”

“When we walk without the cross, when we build without the cross and
when we proclaim Christ without the cross, we are not disciples of the
Lord. We are worldly.”

He added, “We may be bishops, priests, cardinals, popes, all of this, but we are not disciples of the Lord.”

Francis issued a strong warning to the cardinals, telling them the
Catholic Church risks becoming a compassionate nongovernment
organization unless it sticks to its spiritual path.

Building a solid Church, he added, was vital to stop it from crumbling like a “sand castle” built by children.

[To read the remainder of the post, go here. Be warned that what I write there as a Lutheran Christian pastor is overtly Christian. Just a loving warning.]

Here. One wonders how long a shadow these three things will cast on history’s evaluation of the Obama Administration, not to mention policy decisions taken by future administrations. [My personal blog is here.]

NASA’s compelling video about Curiosity‘s final seven minutes before landing on the surface of Mars is exciting to watch! Here’s a Spencer Michels’ report on the Mars lander as presented on this past Friday’s PBS News Hour. Watch New Discoveries From NASA’s ‘Curiosity’ Rover’s Mars Mission on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour. [For the [...]

Previous research has shown a link between extended use of violent video games and increased aggression and anger by players. But now a new study conducted at The Ohio State University confirms it: [Read the rest of the post here.]

]]>http://themoderatevoice.com/long-time-users-of-violent-video-games-more-aggressive/feed/19Did You Hear the One About the Angry Pastor and the Restaurant Server Who Went Viral?http://themoderatevoice.com/did-you-hear-the-one-about-the-angry-pastor-and-the-restaurant-server-who-went-viral/
http://themoderatevoice.com/did-you-hear-the-one-about-the-angry-pastor-and-the-restaurant-server-who-went-viral/#commentsSat, 02 Feb 2013 02:53:04 +0000http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=175021

My buddy, Steve Sjogren, first alerted me to the image of a receipt on which a pastor refused to leave a tip because she already gave 10% to God. He suggested I might want to blog on the story. Since then, I’ve learned more of the details: A Friday night meal at Applebee’s resulted in [...]

A Friday night meal at Applebee’s resulted in more than either the
customer or a waitress working that night bargained for after a pastor’s
refusal to pay a tip was shared online.

Though the embarrassed patron has apologized for her actions, the old
adage of the customer always being right may have some truth to it, as
the waitress who posted photo evidence of the tip snub lost her job for
doing so.

The trouble began last Friday, when Pastor Alois Bell went to the
local chain restaurant with several others following a service at Truth
in the World Deliverance Ministries.

When the bill came, she did not include a tip on the signed copy of her receipt. She did, however, include the reason why.

“I give God 10 [percent],” the note on the receipt read. “Why do you get 18?”

The waitress, who has been identified only as Chelsea by The Consumerist,
posted a picture of the note on the popular user-powered news site
Reddit, along with the caption, “My mistake sir, I’m sure Jesus will pay
for my rent and groceries.”

“I originally posted the note as a lighthearted joke,” she told The
Consumerist. “I thought the note was insulting, but it was also comical.
I posted it to Reddit because I thought other users would find it
entertaining.”

Her post instantly got the attention of other users, and eventually
the news media. The popular story also got back to its source – Bell –
on Wednesday, though she was less amused than others who had seen it
before her. She called the Applebee’s where she had eaten to voice her
frustration over the sharing of the image, which includes her signature.

Chelsea was fired by managers at the restaurant following the call,
despite reportedly being a model employee before this incident…

In an interview with The Smoking Gun,
Bell apologized for her actions, which she described as “lapse in [her]
character and judgment,” adding that she did leave a $6 cash tip on the
table for the waitress who served them that night – who was not
Chelsea.

“My heart is really broken,” she was quoted as saying. “I’ve brought embarrassment to my church and ministry.”

Is billing customers 18% for tips a good policy? Probably not and probably not smart either. While many restaurant patrons are no doubt cheap, inconsiderate of the hard work done by servers and other restaurant personnel, a customer alienated because of a set charge for tips is not likely to return, meaning no business and no tips.

Was Applebee’s right in firing the server? Probably. Whether it was in the company manual or not, she seems to have willfully violated the privacy of another person for what she characterizes as a lighthearted prank. It hardly seems that.

Was the pastor wrong to refuse to pay the tip and to do so invoking both God and her calling as a pastor? I feel so. I also think that she was right to apologize.

Here’s a look at the receipt and Pastor Bell’s note.

The entire incident evokes all sorts of thoughts and feelings from me.

[Read the entire post here. Warning: The rest of the post is overtly Christian, based on my reactions as a Christian pastor to an incident involving a Christian pastor.]

Ann Althouse makes it plain that she thinks departing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was shooting less than straight when she said that isn’t presently inclined to run for the presidency in 2016. Althouse asked her readers to “assess the degree of [baloney]” (my translation) in Clinton’s statement. But I don’t think one can assess [...]

But I don’t think one can assess Clinton too much blame for being disingenuous about her White House ambitions.

For one thing, even in this era of “it’s campaign time all the time,” it’s not “nice” to admit wanting to be President when crews are still cleaning up after the most recent Inauguration, even though those who run without craving the office like cocaine are dismissed for lacking “fire in the belly.”

Have you ever trolled through your news feed on Facebook, observed the seemingly perfect lives of your “friends” and felt that your own life wasn’t as fulfilling as theirs? If you’ve had such feelings, it appears you’re not alone. A study conducted jointly by two German universities found rampant envy on Facebook, the world’s largest [...]

A study conducted jointly by two German universities found rampant
envy on Facebook, the world’s largest social network that now has over
one billion users and has produced an unprecedented platform for social
comparison.

The researchers found that one in three people felt worse after
visiting the site and more dissatisfied with their lives, while people
who browsed without contributing were affected the most.

If you attach much credibility to the postings of those Facebook friends who seem to use most of their posts to brag about how wonderful their lives, children, parents, spouses, children, and vacations are, I could understand how you might develop a case of “Facebook envy.”

But my experience suggests that the postings of some on Facebook are the…

Despite his prediction at the beginning, I was interested in this interview Jerry Seinfeld gave to The New York Times. I’ve always found his bits funny, but confession time: I’ve never watched a single episode of the Seinfeld sitcom. [Read the whole post here.]

That’s the question Dr. Mike Evans asks at the end of this 9-1/2 minute video which, in a compelling, fun, and content-rich format, gives us all plenty of “food” for thought and may incite us to get off our duffs to walk for a half-hour a day. Watching the video is required for members of [...]

That’s the question Dr. Mike Evans asks at the end of this 9-1/2 minute video which, in a compelling, fun, and content-rich format, gives us all plenty of “food” for thought and may incite us to get off our duffs to walk for a half-hour a day.

Watching the video is required for members of the insurance plan to which clergy who wish to get some health discounts. (Good idea, huh?)

But I’d have watched the video anyway.

Watch it yourself: It really could change your life!

[This was cross-posted over on my personal blog, where I occasionally post about health matters.

If you caught Diane Swonk’s appearance on CNN earlier this afternoon, you caught most of this. But, here, on her company’s blog site, she gives a good snapshot of the latest jobs numbers and their implications for the overall economy. She’s very good at doing this. Her bottom line: The labor market continues to heal, [...]

If you caught Diane Swonk’s appearance on CNN earlier this afternoon, you caught most of this. But, here, on her company’s blog site, she gives a good snapshot of the latest jobs numbers and their implications for the overall economy. She’s very good at doing this.

Her bottom line:

The labor market continues to heal, but at too slow of a pace to reengage the long-term unemployed and the young. This, along with the battles yet to be fought on the budget front, will keep the Fed doing all it can to support growth in the first half of the year. Long-term asset purchases are likely to continue through the end of the year, unless some sort of miracle comes out of Washington by March.

This video is from a few years back, but it’s worth viewing again. McCullough’s response to the last question is the clincher. By the way, The Greater Journey, the McCullough book which occupies most of the attention in this interview is fantastic! Thanks to my son for sending out the link to this video. [...]

Saw this magazine cover while shopping today at Costco. The cover says it has the scoop on, “What Tore Them Apart.” My first thought? “Who are they?” I wasn’t interested enough in learning who they are to do a Google search. It just struck me what our celebrity culture has come to. Once upon a [...]

[This was prepared to be shared with the people of the Logan Cancer Recovery Group this evening.] Since my last visit with you several years ago, a few things have happened in my life. In 2010, I suffered a heart attack that took out 40% of my heart. Since then, a stent was implanted in [...]

]]>[This was prepared to be shared with the people of the Logan Cancer Recovery Group this evening.]

Since my last visit with you several years ago, a few things have happened in my life.

In 2010, I suffered a heart attack that took out 40% of my heart. Since then, a stent was implanted in an artery that had been 100% blocked and in 2011, as a precautionary measure, I received a defibrillator/pacemaker.

Also in 2011, a small spot of melanoma was found on my left leg and I underwent an outpatient surgical procedure at the James Center at Ohio State. A biopsy showed that there was no cancer in the surrounding area.

In 2012, I developed a stubborn rash that ultimately proved to be a symptom of Celiac Disease, a genetic condition that may or may not show up in he course of a person’s life. The thinking is that all that whole wheat I was eating to keep my heart healthy triggered the activation of the Celiac Disease. Because I still had a rash and both my wife and I were getting acclimated to the new gluten-free, wheat-free diet that is the only treatment that exists for Celiac, we had to cancel a planned visit with friends who live in France.

Shortly after the Celiac diagnosis, I told an old high school classmate: “It’s no biggie. Heart, cancer, and Celiac were all on my bucket list.” We laughed and he said, “Man, you gotta get a different list.”

Now, I’m doing well. Most days I do several miles of brisk walking. My heart is steady at about 60 beats per minute. My blood pressure, which has never been an issue, is, my doctor says, “perfect.”

There’s been no hint of skin cancer on any other part of my body.

And I’m actually enjoying the gluten-free diet.

After my last physical, my doctor declared that I was in “great shape.”

I can’t claim to have experienced anything like what many of you have gone through. But I have learned some things I either didn’t know or didn’t pay much attention to before my last visit with you. They’re probably things all of you know from your experiences. Nonetheless, they’re worth remembering.

So what are some of these lessons I’ve learned?

First: Any time we receive bad news about our health, we should remember that it isn’t always our faults. We know that smoking leaves us at heightened risk for heart attack and cancer. We know that not exercising and not getting immunized leaves us susceptible to all sorts of diseases. We know that it’s not wise to drive without securing our seat belts. There are common sense precautions we all can take to reduce our risk for diseases or accidents.

But sometimes bad things happen even to cautious people.

[To read the whole thing, go here. Be warned that the last lesson I learned is overtly Christian. If this may offend you, you may want to take a pass on reading the entire post. However, I will tell you that when I made this presentation to a diverse group of people last night, nobody appeared offended.]

This from the Harvard Business Review‘s Daily Stat. Draw your own conclusions. JANUARY 2, 2013 Fatal Heart Attacks Decline When Workplaces Go Smoke-Free U.S. states that impose workplace smoking bans covering the entire population can expect to see about 70 fewer fatal heart attacks annually, on average, among workers ages 25 to 54, in comparison [...]

U.S. states that impose workplace smoking bans covering the entire population can expect to see about 70 fewer
fatal heart attacks annually, on average, among workers ages 25 to 54,
in comparison with states having no workplace smoking bans, says a team
led by Scott Adams of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Put another
way, heart attack fatalities for that age group fall by 17% when states go from having no bans to total workplace smoking prohibitions, the researchers say. Some 36 states have workplace smoking bans of some kind, but many of the laws exclude restaurants and bars.

In the early chapters of their book, The Three Roosevelts: Patrician Leaders Who Transformed America, James MacGregor Burns and Susan Dunn explain how Theodore Roosevelt came to be the first Rooseveltian “traitor to his class,” by descending from the lofty heights of inherited social position and entering the rough world of elective politics. According to [...]

In the early chapters of their book, The Three Roosevelts: Patrician Leaders Who Transformed America, James MacGregor Burns and Susan Dunn explain how Theodore Roosevelt came to be the first Rooseveltian “traitor to his class,” by descending from the lofty heights of inherited social position and entering the rough world of elective politics.

According to Burns and Dunn, the impulse to reform was shared by many other members of the Knickerbocker gentry from which Roosevelt came. Some even engaged in politics.

But they did so in a way that was condescending toward the lower social classes and of their partisan political organizations, always with an eye toward re-establishing the ruling status of those with proper “breeding,” who, they were sure, could overcome the social ills and undeniable corruption of machine politics.

These patricians, known as “Mugwumps,” were appalled by the waves of eastern European, Jewish, Catholic, and Irish immigrants, people they deemed too ignorant to be entrusted with the responsibility of managing the corporate structure of government. In the late nineteenth century, many of TR’s class even advocated rolling back voting rights as the sole prerogative of those who owned property.

In the end though, the Mugwumps and their class recoiled from politics. They refused to dirty their hands by doing the one thing that governance requires. They would not compromise.

As I write this, the Republican caucus of the US House of Representatives is meeting. If reports are to be believed, the caucus will be unwilling to pass the Senate fiscal measure passed early this morning, the result of a deal between Vice President Joe Biden and the Republican leader of the US Senate, which won by a vote of 89-8.

The fifty or so House Republicans, evidently including the number two man in the House, Eric Cantor, are not, like the Mugwumps, old money patricians.

But they do appear to have a similar aversion to compromise. Some do, it seems, informed by the same vanity that rendered the Mugwumps politically impotent: They would rather be critics who remain ideologically pure than participants in governance who take tough choices and taint their political virginity by meeting the other guy halfway.

Other Republican caucus members may torpedo the deal because of their well-founded fears that compromise will bring heavily bankrolled primary challengers to them in the 2014 elections.

But they–along with intransigent liberal Democrats–need to remember that people don’t elect them to perpetually campaign, to function no more as pundits with offices in the Cannon, Longworth, Ford, and Rayburn buildings.

Ideological purity may, in America’s severely gerrymandered US House districts, ensure re-election in districts that don’t reflect the political sentiments of the American people. But when will the ideologues of both parties, with particular emphasis on about four dozen Republican House members at the moment, reach the same conclusion that TR reached, that compromise, getting one’s hands dirty according to one’s own ideological lights, is the only way governance can happen?

We don’t elect people to public office just to give them permission to keep on campaigning. We elect them to govern.

Members of both Congress: Get your hands dirty. Make deals. Govern. That’s what Americans do.

[UPDATE: The House passed the Senate’s modest fiscal bill on January 1, around 11:00 PM. There’s still a lot of work to be done for the new Congress, which will be sworn in today.]
[I blog usually on entirely different subjects, here. I hasten to add that this post reflect only my opinion and isn’t intended to reflect a religious conviction based on my faith or calling as a pastor.]

Like many others last night, we got snow here in southeastern Ohio, our first significant accumulation of the season. I took this video of the church garden at 7:30 this morning. To me, it’s beautiful enough for you to ignore the creaking of the wood floor as I shift my weight around and the sound [...]

Like many others last night, we got snow here in southeastern Ohio, our first significant accumulation of the season. I took this video of the church garden at 7:30 this morning. To me, it’s beautiful enough for you to ignore the creaking of the wood floor as I shift my weight around and the sound of my wife busily washing a pan in the kitchen downstairs. Enjoy!

Here’s yesterday’s installment of The Daily Stat from the Harvard Business Review: DECEMBER 27, 2012 Why You Don’t Like Donating to Charities That Offer Thank-You Gifts Research participants were willing to donate 38% less, on average, to public broadcasting if the U.S. nonprofit offered a thank-you gift, in this case a pen, say George E. [...]

Research participants were willing to donate 38%
less, on average, to public broadcasting if the U.S. nonprofit offered a
thank-you gift, in this case a pen, say George E. Newman and Y. Jeremy
Shen of Yale University. A promised gift of a tote bag brought intended
donations down 17%.
A thank-you gift creates ambiguity in the donor’s mind about whether
the donation is supporting the charity or is a quid-pro-quo, the
researchers say.

Frankly, thank you gifts have never enticed me to make a contribution to a not-for-profit organization.

In fact, they act as a reverse incentive on me, making it less likely that I will give.

Rightly or wrongly, I have a visceral reaction that goes something like this: If they can afford to give me something for my contribution, maybe they don’t need my money. Maybe, I think, they could save a few bucks and lower their cost of operation by not buying thank you gifts.

Now, I’m sure that at least some of the thank you gifts offered by not-for-profits are donated by corporate sponsors who, in turn, are able to write the donations off on their taxes.

But that raises another issue. Even though taxpayers, individual or corporate, would be crazy not to take advantage of the charitable deduction of our tax laws, I’m not a fan.

Anger + Gun= A Tragedy. Rev. Dr. Dwight Moody, a Baptist pastor and a professor, wrote several years ago of how people taking guns into their misunderstandings and disagreements elevates the stakes in conflict situations. Here, anyway, Moody doesn’t touch the subjects of gun control or people’s Second Amendment rights. He objects to the “gun [...]

If you’re like me, just one day after this Christmas, you may have realized that you still have holiday gift cards left over from last year that you haven’t used fully. Holiday gift cards can be a sweet deal for retailers since, in some states, after the sale, recipients leave hundreds of redeemable dollars unclaimed [...]

The typical American home holds an average of $300 in unredeemed gift cards, according to an estimate reported by Rocky B. Cummings and Joseph Carr in the Journal of State Taxation. These cards are often misplaced, accidentally thrown out, or only partially redeemed. Between 2005 and 2011, $41 billion in gift cards went unused, the authors say. But retailers don’t always benefit: Many states require issuers to report unclaimed balances as abandoned property after a prescribed period of time.

The Valley Forge National Park has a tremendous set of web posts delving into the history of the critical, life-threatening encampment of the fledgling United States Army under the command of George Washington during the Revolutionary War. You can read the first profile of the people involved in this encampment, which began on December 19, [...]

The Valley Forge National Park has a tremendous set of web posts delving into the history of the critical, life-threatening encampment of the fledgling United States Army under the command of George Washington during the Revolutionary War. You can read the first profile of the people involved in this encampment, which began on December 19, 1777 and continued through a bitterly cold winter, here.

If you’ve never been to Valley Forge, I recommend a visit highly. It helps make vivid all the sacrifices made and hardships endured by Washington and his army in order to keep the fledgling American republic alive and to pursue the war of survival and attrition needed to make independence from Great Britain possible.

Happy second day of Christmas! Or, if you like, Happy Saint Stephen’s Day. Each December, one of the most-played and sung tunes is The Twelve Days of Christmas. What exactly is that all about? Well, Christmas is actually not just one day for Christians, but a twelve day season, culminating in Epiphany, a day reserved [...]

Each December, one of the most-played and sung tunes is The Twelve Days of Christmas. What exactly is that all about? Well, Christmas is actually not just one day for Christians, but a twelve day season, culminating in Epiphany, a day reserved for the remembrance of the coming of wise men who brought gifts to the Christ child. (And the precursor for our society’s annual custom of wretched gift-giving excess. But I’m getting ahead of myselfe.

Since on the Christian calendar, Christmas just began yesterday, I thought that it might be helpful to re-run an old tried and true post I first wrote at least seven years ago, explaining the Church Year. Hope you find it helpful.

The Church Year is a human invention. Observing it won’t make us better than anybody else. Nor does keeping it “save” a person from sin and death.

But the Church Year is one of those customs or traditions designed to help people know the God we meet in Jesus and also help believers to grow in their faith.

The Church Year is built around three great festivals: Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost.

Christmas, of course, is the celebration of Jesus’ birth.

Easter is the day remembering Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.

Pentecost remembers the occasion fifty days after Jesus’ resurrection and ten days after His ascension into heaven when the Holy Spirit came to Jesus’ praying disciples and gave birth to the Church.

Historically, Easter was the first holiday (that word, by the way, contracts two words: holy day) that Christians began to celebrate.

This only makes sense, as it’s Jesus’ resurrection that gives Christians hope for this life and the one to come. While early Christians did seem to remember Easter on a Sunday falling at the beginning of the Jewish Passover, the practice of the first Christians, all of whom were Jews like Jesus, was to worship on the traditional Jewish Sabbath–from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday–and to celebrate every Sunday as a little Easter. (Some echo of this can be found in the Gospel of John’s occasional references to an “eighth day,” a new beginning in a new week.)

And, despite the dangers, overwhelmingly wish to remain so. This is interesting to consider. George Bernard Shaw once called the US and Great Britain two countries divided by a common language. Despite the intense interactions between us, to this day the cultures of the two most prominent English-speaking lands are very different. In coming days, [...]

This is interesting to consider. George Bernard Shaw once called the US and Great Britain two countries divided by a common language. Despite the intense interactions between us, to this day the cultures of the two most prominent English-speaking lands are very different.

In coming days, there will be debates regarding what legal measures regarding guns, assault rifles, mental health spending, and school security may need to change in the US. But it seems to me that the biggest factor contributing to the periodic occurrences of tragedies like the one in Newtown this week is cultural.

Beyond the use of guns for sport or protection, there is a glorification of gun violence that seems endemic to US culture. It’s seen in our films and our video games. It appears to have its roots in our “Wild West” facts and myths, in which firearms played an important role in the descendants of European colonists subduing the Native Americans who previously occupied this entire continent. And of course, the mythic Western lawman who was “quick on the draw,” employing guns, the “great equalizers,” to impose order on chaos, has to have played its part in our faith in guns as our protectors.

The culture of gun violence in the United States is something that cannot be addressed by laws alone. Attitudes about life will also need to change. And that, I believe, is a profoundly spiritual matter.

But if Britain’s bobbies can go about their work unarmed, can’t we dream of a culture whose attitudes about gun violence have shifted sufficiently to allow our own officers to work without guns?

One pastor’s perspective here. Also: What people need from Christians most in the wake of the Newtown tragedy. (By the way, it’s authenticity.) Warning: If you don’t want a Christian’s faith perspective on the tragedy in Newtown, please don’t read either of the linked posts. Out of respect for those of different perspectives, I haven’t [...]

Warning: If you don’t want a Christian’s faith perspective on the tragedy in Newtown, please don’t read either of the linked posts. Out of respect for those of different perspectives, I haven’t crossposted the pieces on The Moderate Voice. But I thought some of our readers might be interested.

Ian McKellen reprises his role of Gandalf from the Lord of the Rings films in The Hobbit, projected to be the first of three films chronicling the prequel time before the Rings adventures. In an interview with TIME, McKellen pronounced that the one playright in whose plays he’s acted that he hates to be Agatha [...]

Ian McKellen reprises his role of Gandalf from the Lord of the Rings films in The Hobbit, projected to be the first of three films chronicling the prequel time before the Rings adventures.

In an interview with TIME, McKellen pronounced that the one playright in whose plays he’s acted that he hates to be Agatha Christie, the noted mystery writer. McKellen claims, “I’ve done a couple of plays–misery, rubbish. No sense of what human beings are at all.”

Coincidentally, in a recent Twitter exchange with contemporary British mystery writer Michael Jecks, we agreed that Christie’s characters are somewhat thinly developed. I tweeted Jecks:

…have you read much of Agatha Christie? I just finished one of hers. She writes puzzles…
…People seem more like caricatures. Yet I find her mysteries addictive.

In the meantime, Jecks wrote back:

Hah! You beat me to that one! Yes, but they are fun and entertaining. Turn off mind etc…
…Yes puzzles: no characterisation really, which is why actors love her. They can stamp their own mark very easily! I enjoy ’em…

Jecks and I may seem to be saying the same thing as McKellen about Christie’s work. But I don’t think that’s entirely so.

You see, the lack of deep character development, at least in the supporting cast of characters–suspects, mainly–in Christie’s stories doesn’t necessarily denote “no sense of human beings at all.”

Clearly, she had a tremendous understanding of the human beings for whom she wrote her novels, stories, and plays.

She understood that in a workaday world of confounding mysteries, there’s nothing more appealing to our egos or to our desire for order than a mystery in which we join the hero in resolving matters and setting things right.

The proof of how well she understood these things about us is in the enduring popularity of her work, even though much of it takes place in a Jeeves and Wooster world long gone.

Christie, like Alfred Hitchcock, also understood something primal in all human beings: Our terror that, at any moment, our well-ordered world could come crashing down on us.

So, while Christie’s characters may be plastic, her understanding of the characters of those who read or viewed her works was anything but. In this, she remains lastingly insightful.

And this is why her work is more vital, more infused with character, than McKellen’s dismissal of Christie would have it.

Years ago, I remember reading an essay by Ralph Gleason in Rolling Stone about the music of Bob Dylan. Much of Dylan’s work is filled with Dylan’s penchant for, in a phrase by Joan Baez in a song about her relationship with Dylan, “keeping things vague.” Cryptic language, the meaning of which is ambiguous, can initially drive a hearer away from Dylan, not to mention the thinness of Dylan’s voice and the usual sparseness of his arrangements. But those who stick with listening to Dylan are rewarded richly. Dylan’s music, Gleason said, represents a “democratic art,” work to which each listener brings her or his experiences, fears, and hopes. Dylan, at his best, doesn’t tell you what to feel. He takes you to a place and lets you feel what you feel. That, asserted Gleason, is democratic art.

In a way, this is precisely what Christie did and still does. Actors in Christie plays or in scripts based on her stories, as Jecks pointed out, love the freedom of infusing the characters with whatever meaning or quirks they can. Readers are given the same freedom when they sit down to read a mystery by Christie.

In essence, Christie invites us to become her co-authors, to flesh out the characters she trots before us in our imaginations.

I read other authors to find fully realized characters in more realistic life situations. But that doesn’t mean, as McKellen says, that Agatha Christie had no sense of human beings at all.

I would love for all the major media outlets–conventional network news departments, cable news channels, and internet news publishers–to engage in an act of collusion behind an idea mentioned on this evening’s PBS NewHour by David Brooks. When tragic events like today’s Connecticut shooting happen, don’t identify the alleged killer, don’t display that person’s image, [...]

I would love for all the major media outlets–conventional network news departments, cable news channels, and internet news publishers–to engage in an act of collusion behind an idea mentioned on this evening’s PBS NewHour by David Brooks.

When tragic events like today’s Connecticut shooting happen, don’t identify the alleged killer, don’t display that person’s image, don’t dig up their Facebook page, don’t track down people who know them, don’t publish any of their rants.

Refuse to give killers, like the one alleged to have perpetrated today’s rampage, publicity.

Perpetrators of the sort of horror we’ve seen today often desire a kind of dark fame for their evil actions. When some see that mass murderers get saturation coverage, seeming to hold an entire nation hostage for days, it likely incites them to go for their own twisted glory, too.

There are undoubtedly many factors contributing to the number of mass murders we have experienced in recent years. But, I beg the major news outlets to stop one of those factors in its tracks: Don’t give mass killers the fame they crave.

LEGAL NOTICE ON CARTOON: This copyrighted cartoon is licensed to run on TMV. Reproduction elsewhere without licensing is strictly prohibited. See great cartoons by all the top political cartoonists at http://cagle.com. To license this cartoon for your own site, visit http://politicalcartoons.com

Fantastic pictures, accompanied by a short essay on the immediate aftermath of the December 7, 1941 attack by the forces of Imperial Japan on US military installations at Pearl Harbor, can be found here on life.time.com. Worth the short time required to read the essay and go through the slide show composed of many pictures [...]

]]>http://themoderatevoice.com/the-home-front-after-pearl-harbor/feed/0Corporate Political Activism May Not Be Good for Companies’ Bottom Lineshttp://themoderatevoice.com/corporate-political-activism-may-not-be-good-for-companies-bottom-lines/
http://themoderatevoice.com/corporate-political-activism-may-not-be-good-for-companies-bottom-lines/#commentsTue, 04 Dec 2012 16:56:24 +0000http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=169708

That’s suggested by data featured in today’s Harvard Business Review Daily Stat: Big U.S. corporations that created political action committees and made other forays into politics bounced back with less bounce from the financial crisis, according to a study of S&P 500 firms by John C. Coates IV of Harvard Law School. The post-2008 increase [...]

That’s suggested by data featured in today’s Harvard Business ReviewDaily Stat:

Big U.S. corporations that created political action committees and made other forays into politics bounced back with less bounce from the financial crisis, according to a study of S&P 500 firms by John C. Coates IV of Harvard Law School. The post-2008 increase in these companies’ industry-relative shareholder value was 8% lower, on average, than increases registered by politically inactive firms. Political engagement may dilute a company’s strategic focus and lead it to make wasteful investments, Coates says. (Source: Corporate Politics, Governance, and Value Before and After Citizens United)

Find the article which reveals the findings to which the Daily State refers here, in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.